Prodeco Exploration, Inc. v. Ware, 01-84-0514-CV
| Decision Date | 20 December 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 01-84-0514-CV,01-84-0514-CV |
| Citation | 684 S.W.2d 199 |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PRODECO EXPLORATION, INC. and Adobe Oil & Gas Corporation, Appellants, v. Gayl Lauderdale WARE, Appellee. (1st Dist.) |
Norm Riedmueller, Krist, Kinney & Riedmueller, Houston, for appellants.
William V. Wade, Weitinger, Steelhammer & Tucker, Houston, Clay A. Cornett, Hofheinz, Harpold, McDonald & Fitzgerald, Houston, for appellee.
Before EVANS, C.J., and DOYLE and BULLOCK, JJ.
The appellant, Adobe Oil & Gas Corporation, brought this action for declaratory relief, alleging that the appellee, Gayl Lauderdale Ware, was not entitled to certain monies under an oil and gas lease. Ware counterclaimed, seeking a declaratory judgment in her favor and also filed a "Motion to Require Payment of Royalties into the Court Registry." After a hearing, the trial court took the matter under advisement, and later entered the order granting Ware's motion.
Adobe is the operator and owner of a working interest in a producing leasehold, in which Ware asserts a royalty interest. Although two other working interest owners, James B. Cornett, II and Prodeco Exploration Inc., have intervened in the proceedings, the order in question applies only to Adobe. Therefore, this appeal involves only the issues between the two original parties to the suit, Adobe and Ware.
The threshold question is whether this court has jurisdiction to consider the appeal. In deciding this question, we must determine whether the order is interlocutory in nature, and nonappealable.
The courts of appeal have no jurisdiction to hear appeals from interlocutory orders, unless specifically authorized by statute. Henderson v. Shell Oil Co., 143 Tex. 142, 182 S.W.2d 994, 995 (1944). This court does have jurisdiction to review orders which are injunctive in nature, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 4662 (Vernon Supp.1984), and if a portion of an order is injunctive, then that part is reviewable, even though a portion of it may be interlocutory and nonappealable. Wood v. Wood, 585 S.W.2d 761, 762 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1979, writ dism'd).
A portion of the order in question directs Adobe to deposit the sum of $80,000 and future monthly production payments into the registry of the court. The trial court has the inherent authority to direct Adobe to deposit disputed funds into the registry of the court pending the outcome of the litigation, Castilleja v. Camero, 414 S.W.2d 431 (Tex.1967), and we find, in that respect, that the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
REO Industries, Inc. v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America
... ... Cf. Sun Exploration and Production Co. v. Jackson, 31 Tex.Sup.Ct.J. 604, 1988 WL 220582 (July ... ...
-
In re Bumstead Family Irrevocable Tr.
...[1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.); Markel v. World Flight, Inc., 938 S.W.2d 74, 78 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.); Prodeco Expl., Inc. v. Ware, 684 S.W.2d 199, 201 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, no writ). To the the trial court grants a temporary injunction as well as non-injunctive r......
-
Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend LLP v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co., L.P.
...the same order can be interlocutory and unreviewable because they do not resemble injunctive relief.56 For example, at issue in Prodeco Exploration, Inc. v. Ware was an order requiring a party to deposit funds subject to an ownership dispute into the registry and obliging the same party to ......
-
Astoria Industries of Iowa v. Snf, Inc.
...Kaplan, 69 S.W.3d at 217; Markel v. World Flight, Inc., 938 S.W.2d 74, 78, 81 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no writ); Prodeco Exploration, Inc. v. Ware, 684 S.W.2d 199, 201 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1984, no writ) (all addressing the parts of the respective appeals over which they had ju......